Cell Reprogramming
There is a desire in the medical, scientific, and diagnostic fields to reprogram an easily obtainable cell into a cell that is generally harder to obtain, or to reprogram a cell to have new or different functionalities, without fusing or exchanging material with an oocyte or another stem cell.
According to a first mechanism, a stem cell can naturally divide or differentiate into another stem cell, progenitor, precursor, or somatic cell. According to a second mechanism, somatic cell can sometimes transiently change its phenotype or express certain markers when placed in certain conditions, and then revert back when placed back into the original conditions. According to a second mechanism, the phenotype of many cells can be changed through forced expression of certain genes (for example, stably transfecting the c-myc gene into fibroblasts turns them into immortal cells having neuroprogenitor characteristics), however once this forced gene expression is removed, the cells slowly revert back to their original state. Therefore, none of the three above mechanisms should be considered true reprogramming: the first is considered natural differentiation which is part of a cell program that is already in place (going from a more undifferentiated to a more differentiated state), the second is a transient phenotypical change, and the third is a constantly forced cell type. A true stem cell: (i) self-renews almost ‘indefinitely’ (for significantly longer than a somatic cell), (ii) is not a cancerous cell, (iii) is not artificially maintained by forced gene expression or similar means (must also be able to be maintained in standard stem cell media), (iv) can differentiate to progenitor, precursor, somatic or other more differentiated cell type (of the same lineage), and (v) has all the characteristics of a stem cell and not just certain markers or gene expression or morphological appearance.
Despite the numerous scientific and patent publications claiming successful reprogramming or dedifferentiation, generally into a stem cell, almost all of these publications do not disclose true reprogramming because they fall under one of the mechanisms mentioned above. For instance, Bhasin (WO2010/088735), Cifarelli et al. (US2010/0003223), Kremer et al. (US2004/0009595), and Winnier et al. (US2010/0047908) all refer to reprogramming, dedifferentiation, and/or obtained stem cells (or progenitors) as phenotypical cell changes based only on a change in cell surface markers after culture in different media with supplements, with no evidence of true reprogramming or an actual stem cell (non-cancerous self-renewal with stem cells markers and no differentiation markers). The same is true for Benneti (WO2009/079007) who used increased expression of Oct4 and Sox2. Others, such as Akamatsu et al. (WO2010/052904) and You et al. (WO2007/097494, US2009/0246870), refer to having made stem cells, but these came about through constant artificial gene induction delivered by retrovirus (similar to cMyc) with no evidence of true stem cells that are not immortal/tumorigenic, and stable instead of transient. Others, such as Chen et al. (US2005/0176707) and You et al. (US2009/0227023), have made “multipotent cells”, but not stem cells. In addition these alledged multipotent cells were not stable (in the case of You et al. the cells could not even proliferate) and both used constant media supplements and conditions to force the phenotypical change. Yet others, such as Oliveri et al. (WO2009/018832) and Zahner et al. (US2002/0136709), have claimed the making of pluripotent, totipotent, multipotent, and/or unipotent cells automatically through genome-wide DNA demethylation and histone acetylation, but with no evidence of a stable, non-cancerous, true cell line.
True reprogramming appears to have been achieved with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) created independently by Yamanaka's group (Takahashi et al., 2007) and Thomson's group (Yu et al., 2007), and potentially by others before them, and although many of these cells were later found to be cancerous, some of them were not. These cells can be induced by true reprogramming since it was later shown that they can also be induced by non-gene integrating transient transfection (Soldner et al., 2009; Woltjen et al., 2009; Yu et al., 2009) as well as by RNA (Warren et al., 2010) or protein (Kim et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2009) alone or by small molecules (Lyssiotis et al., 2009), and by similar methods. However, these cells are essentially identical to embryonic stem cells and have the same problems of uncontrolled growth, teratoma formation, and potential tumor formation.
A more desirable option is to have multipotent stem cells or pluripotent-like cells whose lineage and differentiation potential is more restricted so that they do not readily form teratomas and uncontrolled growth. There is thus a need for methods of creating multipotent stem cells, multipotent stem-like cells, and stem-like cells and method of reprogramming or transforming easily obtainable cells to highly desirable multipotent stem cells, multipotent stem-like cells, and stem-like cells.
Neural Stem-Like Cells (NSLC)
Repairing the central nervous system (CNS) is one of the frontiers that medical science has yet to conquer. Conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and stroke can have devastating consequences for those who are afflicted. A central hope for these conditions is to develop cell populations that can reconstitute the neural network, and bring the functions of the nervous system back in line. For this reason, there is a great deal of evolving interest in neural stem and progenitor cells. Up until the present time, it was generally thought that multipotent neural progenitor cells commit early in the differentiation pathway to either neural restricted cells or glia restricted cells.
Neural stem cells have promise for tissue regeneration from disease or injury; however, such therapies will require precise control over cell function to create the necessary cell types. There is not yet a complete understanding of the mechanisms that regulate cell proliferation and differentiation, and it is thus difficult to fully explore the plasticity of neural stem cell population derived from any given region of the brain or developing fetus.
The CNS, traditionally believed to have limited regenerative capabilities, retains a limited number of neural stem cells in adulthood, particularly in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus and the subventricular zone that replenishes olfactory bulb neurons (Singec I et al., 2007; Zielton R, 2008). The availability of precursor cells is a key prerequisite for a transplant-based repair of defects in the mature nervous system. Thus, donor cells for neural transplants are largely derived from the fetal brain. This creates enormous ethical problems, in addition to immuno-rejection, and it is questionable whether such an approach can be used for the treatment of a large number of patients since neural stem cells can lose some of their potency with each cell division.
Neural stem cells provide promising therapeutic potential for cell-replacement therapies in neurodegenerative disease (Mimeault et al., 2007). To date, numerous therapeutic transplantations have been performed exploiting various types of human fetal tissue as the source of donor material. However, ethical and practical considerations and their inaccessibility limit the availability as a cell source for transplantation therapies (Ninomiy M et al., 2006).
To overcome barriers and limitations to the derivation of patient specific cells, one approach has been to use skin cells and inducing the trans-differentiation to neural stem cells and/or to neurons (Levesque et al., 2000). Transdifferentiation has been receiving increasing attention during the past years, and trans-differentiation of mammalian cells has been achieved in co-culture or by manipulation of cell culture conditions. Alteration of cell fate can be induced artificially in vitro by treatment of cell cultures with microfilament inhibitors (Shea et al., 1990), hormones (Yeomans et al., 1976), and Calcium-ionophores (Shea, 1990; Sato et al., 1991). Mammalian epithelial cells can be induced to acquire muscle-like shape and function (Paterson and Rudland, 1985), pancreatic exocrine duct cells can acquire an insulin-secreting endocrine phenotype (Bouwens, 1998a, b), and bone marrow stem cells can be differentiated into liver cells (Theise et al., 2000) and into neuronal cells (Woodbury et al., 2000). Other such as Page et al. (US 2003/0059939) have transdifferentiated somatic cells to neuronal cells by culturing somatic cells in the presence of cytoskeletal, acetylation, and methylation inhibitors, but after withdrawal of the priming agent, neuron morphology and established synapses last for not much than a few weeks in vitro, and complete conversion to a fully functional and stable type of neuron has never been demonstrated. These are thus transient cell phenotypes. Complete conversion to a fully functional and stable type of neuroprogenitor or neural stem cell has also never been demonstrated. Acquisition of a stable phenotype following transdifferentiation has been one of the major challenges facing the field.
Thus, there is a need in the biomedical field for stable, potent, and preferably autologouos neural stem cells, neural progenitor cells, as well as neurons and glial cells for use in the treatment of various neurological disorders and diseases. The same is true for many other types of cells. Recently, evidence have been obtained that genes of the basic Helix-Loop-Helix (bHLH) class are important regulators of several steps in neural lineage development, and over-expression of several neurogenic bHLH factors results in conversion of non-determined ectoderm into neuronal tissue. Proneural bHLH proteins control the differentiation into progenitor cells and their progression through the neurogenic program throughout the nervous system (Bertrand et al., 2002). MASH1, NeuroD, NeuroD2, MATH1-3, and Neurogenin 1-3 are bHLH transcription factors expressed during mammalian neuronal determination and differentiation (Johnson et al., 1990; Takebyashi et al., 1997; McCormick et al., 1996; Akazawa et al., 1995). Targeted disruptions of MASH1, Ngn1, Ngn2 or NeuroD in mice lead to the loss of specific subsets of neurons (Guillemot et al., 1993; Fode et al., 1998; Miyata et al., 1999).
U.S. Pat. No. 6,087,168 (Levesque et al.,) describes a method for converting or transdifferentiating epidermal basal cells into viable neurons. In one example, this method comprises the transfection of the epidermal cells with one or more expression vector(s) containing at least one cDNA encoding for a neurogenic transcription factor responsible for neural differentiation. Suitable cDNAs include: basic-helix-loop-helix activators, such as NeuroD1, NeuroD2, ASH1, and zinc-finger type activators, such as Zic3, and MyT1. The transfection step was followed by adding at least one antisense oligonucleotide known to suppress neuronal differentiation to the growth medium, such as the human MSX1 gene and/or the human HES1 gene (or non-human, homologous counterparts). Finally, the transfected cells were grown in the presence of a retinoid and a least one neurotrophin or cytokine, such as brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), nerve growth factor (NGF), neurotrophin 3 (NT-3), or neurotrophin 4 (NT-4). This technology yields 26% of neuronal cells; however, neither functionality nor stability of these cells was established. In addition, neural stem cells or neuroprogenitor cells are not produced according to this method.
A later process (Levesque et al., 2005; U.S. Pat. No. 6,949,380) mentions the conversion of the epidermal basal cell into a neural progenitor, neuronal, or glial cell by exposing the epidermal basal cell to an antagonist of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and growing the cell in the presence of at least one antisense oligonucleotide comprising a segment of a MSX 1 gene and/or HES1 gene. However, there is no evidence or examples that any neural progenitors or glial cells were produced according to this method, let alone any details or evidence that morphological, physiological or immunological features of neuronal cells was achieved. In addition, since there is also no information on functionality, stability, expansion, and yield about the cells which may or may not have been produced, it is possible that these cells actually are skin-derived precursor cells (Fernandes et al., 2004) that have been differentiated into neuronal cells.
In view of the above, there is thus a need for stable, potent, and preferably autologouos neural stem cells, neural progenitor cells, neurons and glial cells, as well as other types of cells, stem cells and progenitor cells. There is also a need for methods that could result in true cell dedifferentiation and cell reprogramming.
The present invention addresses these needs and provides various types of stem-like and progenitor-like cells and cells derived or differentiated from these stem-like or progenitor-like cells, as well as methods that can result in true cell dedifferentiation and cell reprogramming.
Additional features of the invention will be apparent from a review of the disclosure, figures and description of the invention herein.